[Khadra]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

First of all, that quote of mine that you added to, the part about "2000 years of church teaching" and you said "thats a religious argument". Let me clarify, I am using that argument while keeping in mind that the church has built the framework for our laws and constitution. Just to clarify.

And when you say "It is natural". Again, your missing my point. It corrupts the natural order of things. Meaning it changes the definition of "family", and since many laws were created with family moral values in mind it changes our morals as a country.

And let me address your first and last paragraph at the same time. How can you agree with that last statement I made, and also deny that the gays are trying to change to church? I am not saying that they are changing the church in an extreme way, such as forcing priests to marry gays. But they are trying to change it in an indirect way. They are trying to create new age catholics that are ok with gays, almost as if they are writing christian beliefs themselves. If you understand what I am trying to say, if you don't I could try and explain it better, I'm tired and it is late so my effort in this post is lacking.

And your other paragraph, "How could you use religion to back you point", I'm sorry but I almost laughed when I read that. I could use religion because, as you agree, every major religion rejects homosexuality. However, I am only using religion as an argument because of it's parallel and it's role in developing the republic that we live in today. And you say "just because its old doesn't mean its right"... so just because a concept is "new" makes it right? My point is... Governments, Rules, Ideas, ect. have all come and gone, but religion has always been there. So that may or may not hint that there is something to the moral codes of religion.

It is still a religious argument, because we do not live in a theocracy and our laws should not have anything to do with religion (tradition or not).

Are you admitting then that homosexuality IS biological? and if so, how can you say that homosexuals raising children is not natural?
Homosexuals compose of 5-10% of the population. That is a pretty significant portion of the population. Many kids grow up in single-parent family homes or blended family homes or are raised by other family members. Are you going to make divorce illegal now? because apparently you think only a man and a woman together are fit to raise a child

I don't think I understand what you're saying about gays trying to change the church, sorry. I think all most gay people want is to have the same rights heterosexual people, not take anything away from the church. I suppose some christian gay people may be trying to change the church, so they can be accepted in their chosen religion, but I don't know how commone that really is.

Generally, new things are better than old things. Of course they aren't always, but often they are. The reason is because as time goes by we learn more and more. When the religious texts were created society was very different. People knew a lot less than they do today. Not to mention, none of the many existing religions have yet been proven, so using them to back up a point does not have much meaning.

Last point, allowing homosexuals to be themselves and get married to the love of their life makes them happy. How can you possibly feel good about yourself denying them the right to this happiness? How would you feel if someone told YOU you couldn't marry the love of your life and have the benefiits that come with it? You can let them have their rights (AND HAPPINESS) without agreeing with what they're doing.